Feel this - Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice
Feel this - Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice
Feel this - Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
“<strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong>!” Jan Hus <strong>and</strong> the Preaching of <strong>Reformation</strong><br />
Thomas A. Fudge<br />
(Christchurch, New Zeal<strong>and</strong>)<br />
107<br />
In his sermon for Palm Sunday 1406, in a moving display of oratory, the Prague<br />
priest Jan Hus enjoined his congregation neither simply to hear nor to know, but to feel<br />
the message. “He [Christ] puts death to flight, <strong>and</strong> restores us to life: <strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong>! He was<br />
killed that he might make whole, he died that he might live: <strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong>! He is spotted that<br />
he might cleanse: <strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong>!” 1 The repeated Czech equivalent of the Latin Hoc sentite<br />
brought preacher, gospel <strong>and</strong> congregation together in a unique liturgical <strong>and</strong> spiritual<br />
relationship.<br />
Jan Hus has remained a contested figure of late medieval history. He is either<br />
heretic or saint, criminal or martyr, Czech hero or vilified outcast, profound thinker or<br />
plagiarizer. To <strong>this</strong> day he remains controversial. Whatever conclusions history may yet<br />
draw concerning <strong>this</strong> peasant from south Bohemia, Jan Hus was first <strong>and</strong> foremost a<br />
preacher. Popular songs sung by his followers gave fervent testimony: “If you want to<br />
know the Bible, you must go to Bethlehem <strong>and</strong> learn it on the walls as Master Jan of<br />
Husinec preached it.” 2 On the walls of his preaching center, the Bethlehem Chapel,<br />
Hus had inscribed several texts in Latin <strong>and</strong> in the common tongue. Moreover, pictures<br />
on those same walls attracted attention for many years. 3 Hus later counselled his<br />
followers to learn the truth on the walls of the chapel of Bethlehem. 4 Other <strong>Bohemian</strong><br />
popular songs lauded Hus as a most honest preacher. 5 Even his later detractors<br />
acknowledged his exceptional presence as a preacher of the gospel. Aeneas Sylvius<br />
Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II, referred to Hus as a powerful speaker. 6 Modern<br />
scholars have described Hus’ sermons as the chief event of the times, 7 while others<br />
1 Jan Hus, Sermo in Dominica Palmarum, Opera Omnia 7:168.<br />
2 Jiří Daňhelka, ed., Husitské písně [Hussite Songs] (Prague, 1952) 133.<br />
3 There are several studies of these pictures in their historical context <strong>and</strong> evolution. František M. Bartoš,<br />
“Po stopách obrazů v Betlemské kapli z doby Husovy,” [An investigation of the symbols at the Bethlehem<br />
Chapel from the time of Hus] Jihočeský sborník historický 20 (1951) 121-7, <strong>and</strong> several related essays by<br />
Thomas A. Fudge, “Art <strong>and</strong> Propag<strong>and</strong>a in Hussite Bohemia,” Religio. Revue pro religionistiku 1,2 (1993)<br />
135-52, “Visual Heresy <strong>and</strong> the Communication of Ideas in the Hussite <strong>Reformation</strong>,” Kosmas:<br />
Czechoslovak <strong>and</strong> Central European Journal 12,1 (1996) 120-51, “Visual Heresy <strong>and</strong> Popular Religion in<br />
Early Modern Europe,” History Now Te Pae Tawhito o te Wā 3 (May 1997) 1-7 <strong>and</strong> The Magnificent Ride:<br />
The First <strong>Reformation</strong> in Hussite Bohemia [St. Andrews Studies in <strong>Reformation</strong> History] (Aldershot, 1998)<br />
178-274.<br />
4 S. Harrison Thomson, ed., Magistri Johannis Hus Tractatus de ecclesia (Cambridge <strong>and</strong> Boulder, 1956)<br />
217. František Šmahel, “Literacy <strong>and</strong> Heresy in Hussite Bohemia,” in Heresy <strong>and</strong> Literacy, 1000-1530,<br />
eds., Anne Hudson <strong>and</strong> Peter Biller (Cambridge, 1994) 238 underscores the potential problems<br />
confronting the laity with respect to Latin inscriptions.<br />
5 Daňhelka, ed., Husitské písně 143.<br />
6 Historia bohemica in Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Opera Omnia (Basel, 1571) c. 35.<br />
7 František Palacký, Geschichte von Böhmen, 5 vv. (Prague, 1836-67) 3,1:214.
108<br />
have asserted that Jan Hus controlled Prague from his pulpit. 8 The hyperbole suggests<br />
a kernel of truth. One of the primary sources for an indication of Hus as a reformer can<br />
be found in his preaching activity. 9<br />
Preaching specifically, <strong>and</strong> the sermon in general, played an essential rôle in<br />
later medieval European society. Even as late as the sixteenth century, more than one<br />
hundred years after the invention of the movable type printing press by Johannes<br />
Gutenberg, Europe remained an oral culture. Books may have proliferated but the<br />
majority of people in Europe at the end of the Middle Ages were conventionally<br />
illiterate. Preaching, then, in such a context took on the importance of instruction, the<br />
communication of ideas <strong>and</strong> therefore was a social force essentially unrivalled. By the<br />
fifteenth century popular preaching came more <strong>and</strong> more to function in the life of the<br />
community. Jan Hus would preach ad cleros [to the clergy] as well as ad populum [to<br />
the people]. In these contexts his sermons became both a lamp <strong>and</strong> a mirror on life in<br />
late medieval Bohemia. It was his sermons to popular audiences which galvanised the<br />
already developing reform movement in Prague; a tradition already a generation in the<br />
making. His activities constituted the preaching of reformation. The repetition of<br />
sermons, frequent preaching, increased the effects of reformation <strong>and</strong> potentially<br />
exp<strong>and</strong>ed the range of advocates for the reforms dem<strong>and</strong>ed. 10 In <strong>this</strong> attention to<br />
popular preaching Hus was no innovator. Indeed, he stood in a long line of popular<br />
preaching tradition in late medieval Bohemia: Konrad of Waldhauser, Jan Milíč of<br />
Kroměříž, Matěj of Janov, Jan Protiva, Štěpán of Kolín, Jan of Štěkna, Petr of Stupna<br />
<strong>and</strong> others. 11 Such traditions were not unusual. Popular preaching had been<br />
widespread in Europe from at least the twelfth century <strong>and</strong> there is legislation in the<br />
capitularies of Charlemagne from the ninth century calling for vernacular preaching.<br />
Sermons in the common language came to occupy a central place in the development<br />
of reformation in Bohemia. Once again, the Hussites were not the originators of <strong>this</strong><br />
practice. Indeed, sermons preached in the vernacular both to clerical <strong>and</strong> lay<br />
audiences were fairly widespread in western Europe by the fifteenth century.<br />
Jan Hus inherited <strong>this</strong> medieval preaching tradition. What makes Hus worthy of<br />
attention is his persuasive preaching of reformation. Bethlehem Chapel was the third<br />
such church in Prague dedicated to those reforming trends beginning to emerge in<br />
Bohemia. 12 A recognition of his qualities as a preacher precipitated Hus’ appointment<br />
8<br />
František Kavka, The Hussite Movement <strong>and</strong> the Czech <strong>Reformation</strong> [Cahiers d’Histoire Mondiale 5]<br />
(1960) 837.<br />
9<br />
Thomas A. Fudge, “Il predicatore di Jan Hus,” in Dizionario de Omiletica, Manlio Sodi <strong>and</strong> Achille M.<br />
Triacca, eds, (Turin & Bergamo, 1998) 684-88.<br />
10 Šmahel, “Literacy <strong>and</strong> Heresy in Hussite Bohemia,” 243.<br />
11 The first five are relatively well known figures, often discussed in the literature of the early Hussite<br />
movement. The latter pair are more obscure. Jan of Štěkna (+1405) was a Cistercian <strong>and</strong> professor in the<br />
faculty of theology at the University of Cracow <strong>and</strong> served as confessor to the Polish queen, Jadwiga. He<br />
had preached in the Bethlehem Chapel <strong>and</strong> had once been a colleague of the young Jan Hus. Petr of<br />
Stupna (+1407) was renowned for his musical abilities <strong>and</strong> preaching. In one of his sermons as rector of<br />
the university on 29 November 1409, Jan Hus praised both men for their eloquent <strong>and</strong> fervent preaching.<br />
See the address in Matthias Flacius Illyricus, ed., Historia et Monumenta Ioannis Hus atque Hieronymi<br />
Pragensis, Confessorum Christi, etc (Nürnberg, 1715), 2:62-6. On Hus as a preacher see also Anežka<br />
Vidmanová, “Hus als Prediger,” CV 19 (1976) 65-81.<br />
12 On <strong>this</strong> chapel see Otakar Odložilík, “The Bethlehem Chapel in Prague: Remarks on its Foundation<br />
Charter,” Studien zur Älteren Geschichte Osteuropas [Wiener Archiv für Geschichte des Slawentums und
109<br />
to the pulpit of Bethlehem Chapel in 1402. His preaching primarily centered on issues<br />
of moral <strong>and</strong> social reform. Hus used the pulpit of Bethlehem Chapel as a venue for<br />
addressing pressing needs in Czech society, including issues concerning ecclesiastical<br />
renovatio <strong>and</strong> reformatio. In <strong>this</strong> Hus attracted the condemnation of those not so<br />
inclined. While Hus’ sermons included many references to social conditions in Prague<br />
<strong>and</strong> Bohemia, his comments must not in every instance be taken as factual without<br />
independent corroboration. <strong>Religious</strong> reformers such as Tomáš Štítný (+1401) <strong>and</strong> Hus<br />
frequently complained of the unfair taxation of peasants <strong>and</strong> attempted to make <strong>this</strong> a<br />
source for widespread social ills. This may have been the case in certain times <strong>and</strong><br />
particular places but extant records do not always support such claims. Nonetheless,<br />
vernacular preaching proved attractive to the masses in Prague. Indeed, Bethlehem<br />
Chapel had been founded specifically for preaching in the vernacular. Petr of Stupna<br />
preached Czech sermons in St. Vitus’ Cathedral, but otherwise only Hus’ chapel<br />
featured regular vernacular preaching. His audience consisted of an excellent crosssection<br />
of Prague: women, children, servants, magistrates, university masters,<br />
tradesmen, artisans, merchants, Queen Sophie, the archbishop’s sister, <strong>and</strong> other<br />
political <strong>and</strong> military figures including Jan Žižka. Contemporary sources reveal that the<br />
Bethlehem Chapel was nearly always full. This non-parochial chapel functioned as an<br />
essential venue for the spoken word in the early <strong>Bohemian</strong> <strong>Reformation</strong>. 13<br />
It has been estimated that Hus preached about three thous<strong>and</strong> sermons during<br />
his career as rector of the Bethlehem Chapel. 14 There are at least nine collections of<br />
Hus’ Latin sermons extant in addition to his Czech sermons. 15 His early sermons of<br />
1401-1403 are preserved in manuscripts in the Praemonstratensian Strahov Monastery<br />
in Prague. 16 These sermons preached in the Church of St. Michael in Prague’s Old<br />
Town <strong>and</strong> in the Bethlehem Chapel are entirely orthodox in their call for moral reform,<br />
while they reflect the influence of the Czech reform tradition. There are seventy-seven<br />
sermons for holy days wherein one finds discourses on New Testament personalities<br />
such as SS. Matthew, John Baptist, Mary Magdalene <strong>and</strong> others. There are also<br />
sermons dealing with the holy men <strong>and</strong> women of <strong>Bohemian</strong> history: SS. Vojtěch,<br />
Ludmila, <strong>and</strong> Václav. The doctrinal content is consistent with the topics <strong>and</strong><br />
Osteuropas 2,1] (Graz <strong>and</strong> Cologne, 1956) 125-41 <strong>and</strong> more recently Thomas A. Fudge, “‘Ansellus dei’<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague,” CV 35,2 (1993) 127-61. Prior to its foundation the chapel of the<br />
Jerusalem experiment of Jan Milíč introduced frequent communion, moral reform <strong>and</strong> emphasized the<br />
social implications of the gospel. A second chapel known as Božieho Tela, “Corpus Christi”, likewise<br />
practiced lay communion <strong>and</strong> adhered to the evolving spirit of reform which in Bohemia must be traced<br />
from the 1340s.<br />
13 Šmahel, “Literacy <strong>and</strong> Heresy in Hussite Bohemia,” 248.<br />
14 Václav Flajšhans, ed., Mistra Jana Husi Sebrané spisy [The Collected Works of Master Jan Hus]<br />
(Prague, n.d.) 6:iv. On the Bethlehem sermons see further František M. Bartoš, “Problém Husových tzv.<br />
Betlemských kázání” [The Problem with the so-called Bethlehem Sermons of Hus], in Husův sborník [Hus<br />
Memorial Volume], ed., Rudolf Říčan (Prague, 1966) 42-7 <strong>and</strong> Eva Kamínková, “Husova Betlémská kázání<br />
a jejich dvě recense” [Hus’s Bethlehem Sermons <strong>and</strong> their two Recensions], Acta universitatis carolinae,<br />
philosophica et historica, 1963 [Monographia, 2] (Prague, 1963).<br />
15 There is a list in Václav Flajšhans, ed., Sermones de sanctis in Mistra Jana Husi Sebrané spisy volume<br />
7:iv-vi. Czech scholarship on these sermons see Karel Červený, “Překlad několika Husových latinských<br />
kázání” [Several translations of Hus’ Latin Sermons], in Hus stále živý [Hus always Living], ed., Miloslav<br />
Kaňák (Prague, 1965) 69-86.<br />
16 They have been edited <strong>and</strong> published. František Šimek, ed., Mistr Jan Hus: Česká kázání sváteční<br />
[Master Jan Hus: Czech holy day sermons] (Prague, 1952).
110<br />
interpretation of medieval preaching in the orthodox catholic tradition. 17 Even modern<br />
scholars who tend to see heresy in Hus at every corner admit the essential orthodoxy of<br />
Hus’ early sermons wherein there is present the exposition of catholic doctrine without<br />
polemic, argument or contest. 18<br />
Hus’ Sermones de tempore qui Collecta dicuntur consist of ninety-nine sermons<br />
<strong>and</strong> date from 30 November 1404 to 22 November 1405. 19 These sermons, together<br />
with those preserved from 1408, continue the conservative reformist trends, <strong>and</strong> are<br />
also devoid of any discernable Wyclifite influence. 20 His later sermons in the<br />
Bethlehem Chapel from 1410-1411 begin increasingly to critique the institutional church<br />
<strong>and</strong> its practices <strong>and</strong> may be related to parallel political <strong>and</strong> ecclesiastical<br />
developments. 21 Hus’ consistent orthodox sermons did create controversy as early as<br />
1405 by denouncing popular religious superstitions at Litomyšl in eastern Bohemia <strong>and</strong><br />
at Wilsnack in Br<strong>and</strong>enburg. 22 In these sermons Hus spared none of those responsible<br />
for leading the people of God astray. 23 In 1408 Hus defended preaching without an<br />
official approbation <strong>and</strong> drew criticism from his clerical colleagues <strong>and</strong> especially from<br />
the higher clergy. The exacerbation of the papal schism in 1409 as a result of the efforts<br />
of the Council of Pisa thrust Hus into opposition with Archbishop Zbyněk who in turn<br />
fell from favor with King Václav IV. In the same year the king issued a decree from<br />
Kutná Hora allowing the Charles University in Prague to pass from German control into<br />
the h<strong>and</strong>s of the Czechs. Hus became university rector later that year. <strong>Religious</strong><br />
conflicts precipitated the public burning of heretical books in 1410 by order of Zbyněk<br />
despite great outcry. There is good reason for associating these events with the<br />
radicalizing of Hus’ preaching.<br />
As early as 1404 in his sermon “throwing aside the works of darkness”, Hus<br />
condemned the practice of charging fees for divine ministry. This custom was contrary<br />
to the idea of the Law of God. 24 Grace was free <strong>and</strong> to extort payment for what had<br />
17 Šimek points out that in these sermons there is neither trace of the influence of Wyclif nor elements<br />
which might be adjudicated to be dogmatically unsound or at variance with the official church. Mistr Jan<br />
Hus: Česká kázání sváteční xliii.<br />
18<br />
For example see Jan Sedlák, “Husů vývoj dle jeho postil,” Studie a texty k náboženským dějinám<br />
českýmt 2 (Olomouc, 1915) 397-8.<br />
19 Hus’ sermons delivered in 1404-5 may be found in Sermones de tempore qui Collecta dicuntur [Opera<br />
Omnia 7], while the 1408 homilies have been collected in Flajšhans, ibid. vv. 7-8.<br />
20 See also Anežka Vidmanová, “Husova tzv. postilla De tempore (1408/9)” [The so-called Hus Postil De<br />
Tempore of 1408-9] Listy filologický 94 (1971) 7-22.<br />
21 Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411, 6 vv (Prague, 1938-45).<br />
22 Hus wrote a tract against the veracity of Christ’s blood appearing on communion hosts at the site of<br />
several popular pilgrimage destinations. De omni sanguine Christi glorificato. See the text in Historia et<br />
Monumenta 1: 191-202. This treatise principally denounced the shrine at Wilsnack. In his Postil Hus<br />
asserted that priests at Litomyšl confessed to perpetrating the fraud by dipping the host in blood <strong>and</strong><br />
then claiming some type of miraculous intervention. J.B. Jeschke, ed., Mistr Jan Hus, Postilla [Master Jan<br />
Hus, Postil] (Prague, 1952) 207.<br />
23 There are a variety of denunciations against what Hus refers to as “manufactured miracles” in his<br />
Sermones de tempore qui Collecta dicuntur, Opera Omnia 7:107, 130, 216, 568, <strong>and</strong> passim.<br />
24<br />
Anežka Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus Magister Universitatis Carolinae Positiones, recommendationes,<br />
sermones (Prague, 1958) 109.
111<br />
been proffered without charge was, for Hus, entirely reprehensible. 25 Hus’ last<br />
important collection of sermons is his Postil which was completed at Kozí Hrádek on 27<br />
October 1413. 26 The Postil contains sermons on the gospel for each Sunday of the<br />
year <strong>and</strong> essentially is a re-working of his Latin Postil of 1410-1411. In the introduction<br />
to <strong>this</strong> collection Hus stated that he wished to place the gospel text first, followed by the<br />
exposition so that the word of God might speak first <strong>and</strong> louder than the word of Hus. 27<br />
The sermons of Master Jan Hus abound in references to Scripture, the Fathers,<br />
<strong>and</strong> canon law. Among the Fathers Hus referred most often to Augustine, Gregory,<br />
Cyril, Jerome, <strong>and</strong> John Chrysostom. Frequently Hus quoted extensively from<br />
Augustine, Gregory, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas as well as other patristic <strong>and</strong> medieval<br />
luminaries. He did not eschew classical sources. One finds references to the life of<br />
Alex<strong>and</strong>er the Great <strong>and</strong> Virgil in his sermons. 28 There is also a clear doctrinal element<br />
present with emphasis upon morality <strong>and</strong> spiritual edification. Hus castigated faithless<br />
priests relentlessly.<br />
Given the radicalism of the later Hussite movement one is somewhat surprised<br />
to find a lack of revolutionary material in the corpus of Hus’ sermons. This is not to<br />
suggest that the preaching of reformation by Hus was entirely jejune. Indeed not. His<br />
sermons produced a significant <strong>and</strong> lasting effect. But the polemical notions of Hus<br />
shouting his heresies from the pulpit of the Bethlehem Chapel are clearly unwarranted.<br />
Instead, Hus’ sermons are genuinely orthodox <strong>and</strong> were delivered with pastoral<br />
concerns. In the introduction to his commentary of the Apostles’ Creed [Výklad víry]<br />
Hus wrote: “Because I am a priest, sent by God in the hope that I should teach the<br />
people to believe, to fulfil the comm<strong>and</strong>ments of God, <strong>and</strong> to pray to God aright, I wish<br />
briefly to expound these things to simple people.” 29 Hus’ sermons are more like<br />
commentaries on texts rather than expositions based on a pericope, <strong>and</strong> as such, are<br />
lacking in illustrative material. The preaching of reformation had its disadvantages.<br />
Sermons generally were not repeated, they were singular events. This meant that the<br />
impact was by necessity limited. Furthermore, there persisted “communication flaws”. 30<br />
In other words, what Hus said <strong>and</strong> what people heard are two separate questions.<br />
Verbal texts, like written ones, have a life of their own <strong>and</strong> the ensuing interpretations<br />
many <strong>and</strong> varied.<br />
To underscore the conservative, orthodox nature of Hus’ preaching one may<br />
note that in 1403 Hus preached twenty-five times on the Virgin Mary <strong>and</strong> her feasts. In<br />
these sermons he accepted the tenets of her virginity, annunciation, assumption <strong>and</strong><br />
intercession on behalf of sinners. His preaching revealed consistent orthodoxy on<br />
25<br />
Articulated in <strong>this</strong> fashion in the sermon “Abiciamus opera tenebrarum” in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus . .<br />
. Positiones, recommendationes, sermones 109.<br />
26 Jeschke, Mistr Jan Hus, Postilla.<br />
27 Jeschke, Postilla. 12. On Hus’ use of scripture in the Postil see Emanuel Michálek, “K biblickým citátům<br />
v Husově české nedělní Postile” [The Biblical citations in Hus’ Sunday Czech Postil] Listy filologické 93<br />
(1970) 21-8.<br />
28<br />
See for example his sermon Confirmate corda vestra in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus . . . Positiones,<br />
recommendationes, sermones 123.<br />
29<br />
The text of the exposition appears in Karel J. Erben, ed., Mistra Jana Husi: Sebrané spisy české (Prague,<br />
1865) 1: 1-52.<br />
30 Šmahel, “Literacy <strong>and</strong> Heresy in Hussite Bohemia,” 243.
112<br />
topics such as baptism <strong>and</strong> penance. 31 Hus’ christology is likewise consistent with later<br />
medieval theology vis-à-vis the dual nature of Christ <strong>and</strong> his sinlessness. There are<br />
repeated exhortations to follow Christ <strong>and</strong> a call for transformation, both moral <strong>and</strong><br />
spiritual. In his exposition of morality Hus was strongly ascetic: he denounced sexual<br />
misconduct, greed, gluttony, drunkenness, rich clothing, pride, games, dancing,<br />
hunting, <strong>and</strong> simony. His message of moral renewal was one of discipline, humility,<br />
poverty <strong>and</strong> a consistent rejection of the world. 32 In <strong>this</strong> world-negating context, Hus<br />
offered the alternative of Christ who had come in human form specifically to rectify the<br />
follies <strong>and</strong> foibles of humankind. Human restoration could only be accomplished by the<br />
promise of eternal life extended in the shedding of blood. 33 Hus’ doctrine of salvation is<br />
not misrepresented as theologia crucis. In his Postil the water of baptism symbolized by<br />
the flow of water from the side of Christ on the cross is for Hus “an abundant spring for<br />
the cleansing of sin.” 34 This theology of the cross is the heart of Hus’ preaching. In <strong>this</strong><br />
conviction the Prague priest developed the preaching of reformation. “[Christ] came to<br />
call sinners to repentance in order to compel carnal people away from the vices of<br />
carnality. He came to draw those stricken with cold to the fires of love. To those blinded<br />
by ignorance he has come to shine upon them. This all-powerful lord came not to kill<br />
the living but to call to life those already dead, in body <strong>and</strong> in soul.” 35 This is the<br />
remedy for those who have followed Satan, the first to fall, into the ways of<br />
unrighteousness. 36 According to the preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel, Christ has<br />
come to give his own single life in exchange for the lives of the many. “[Christ] came to<br />
humankind, came on account of humankind, came as a human.” 37 Rather than human<br />
works, Christ became the foundation for redemption <strong>and</strong> the power of God for<br />
salvation. Humans, spiritually dead in sin, find new life through God’s action in Christ.<br />
Here, Hus is thoroughly Augustinian. Salvation is based squarely on a predestination<br />
determined by God. Neither popes nor peasants are different in <strong>this</strong> regard. Both are<br />
recipients of divine grace, neither one nor the other can penetrate the mysteries of<br />
God. 38 The soteriological principle was entirely the prerogative of God. Humankind are<br />
the recipients, the beneficiaries, but never the cause or the reason. Even the human<br />
31 For example his Sermon for Trinity Sunday, Opera Omnia 7:280. On penance his sermon for the First<br />
Sunday in Lent of the same year is instructive. Ibid. 127.<br />
32<br />
Jan Sedlák, ed., Studie a texty k životopisu Husovui [Studies <strong>and</strong> texts toward a biography of Hus], 3 vv.<br />
(Olomouc, 1914-19) 2:394-9.<br />
33 Second Sermon for Easter Day, Opera Omnia 7:178.<br />
34 Erben, ed., Mistra Jana Husi: Sebrané spisy české 2:234-5.<br />
35 “Venit equidem, ut peccatores ad penitenciam vocaret, carnales a carnalibus viciis retraheret,<br />
infrigidatos igne caritatis accenderet, cecatos ignorancia saluberima irradiaret doctrina. Venit omnipotens<br />
Dominus, non vivos mortificare, sed mortuos tam corporis quam anime suscitara.” This in his sermon<br />
Confirmata corda vestra in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus . . . Positiones, recommendationes, sermons 119.<br />
36<br />
Stated as such in his sermon Abiciamus opera tenebrarum in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus . . . Positiones,<br />
recommendationes, sermones 100.<br />
37 This in his sermon Confirmate corda vestra. In Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones,<br />
recommendationes, sermones 119. Hus is in fact quoting Bernard: “. . . venit ad homines, venit propter<br />
homines, venit homo.” PL 183, col. 43. Compare Hus’ sermon for Palm Sunday 1406 where he again<br />
makes clear that Christ assumed flesh for no other purpose than to effect salvation for all people.<br />
Salvation is offered as an eternal medicine, which Hus underst<strong>and</strong>s as the blood of Christ, designed to<br />
cure all people for all time. Opera Omnia 7:168.<br />
38 Jeschke, Postilla 174.
113<br />
longing for God is a result of God. In a series of sermons Hus dispatched the ghost of<br />
Pelagius <strong>and</strong> proclaimed Christ as the gift of divine grace. 39 Indeed, for Hus it was a<br />
matter of acceptance. “<strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong> sensation within yourselves . . . .” It was incumbent for<br />
the faithful to practice their faith <strong>and</strong> to come to terms with an experience of the<br />
crucified. 40 The preaching of reformation in Hus’ Prague was a matter of knowledge,<br />
acceptance <strong>and</strong> experience. “<strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong>!” But even in <strong>this</strong> overwhelming Augustinian<br />
sense Hus does not admit that divine grace is irresistible. There are those, the preacher<br />
asserted, who spurn the grace offered. 41 Humans are not merely pawns in a cosmic<br />
game. Hus did allow for choice in the offering <strong>and</strong> accepting of divine grace.<br />
Humankind have been given the gift of free will by God <strong>and</strong> no one can be compelled<br />
to forsake evil <strong>and</strong> do good. The dignity of humankind consisted, for Hus, in the matter<br />
of free will. 42 Here he seems to swerve toward the Pelagian option, but in the context of<br />
his corpus of sermons that option consistently paled in the light of divine initiative. 43<br />
In the preaching of salvation in a reformation context Jan Hus decried in strident<br />
terms the sale <strong>and</strong> acquisition of indulgences. The preaching of indulgences for the<br />
forgiveness of sins was nothing other than deception, theological error <strong>and</strong><br />
ecclesiastical abuse. His sermon for 10 December 1410 put a fine point on the<br />
arbitrariness of the practice. The priests declare, “give nothing but money <strong>and</strong> your sins<br />
shall be forgiven, free from punishment <strong>and</strong> guilt.” More than a century later Luther<br />
would declare that the Dominican indulgence vendor Johannes Tetzel preached, “as<br />
soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.” 44 Hus affirmed that<br />
Prague indulgence sellers would spread wide their h<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> announce to their<br />
hearers that whoever placed money in their out-stretched h<strong>and</strong>s would immediately<br />
have their sins remitted. Even if the one who bought an indulgence was a wicked<br />
individual <strong>and</strong> should die, their soul would go to heaven. By contrast a morally upright<br />
person, failing to procure an indulgence would be consigned to eternal damnation in<br />
the absence of an indulgence. 45 The entire enterprise lacked all merit, according to<br />
Hus, indeed no biblical justification could be found. St. Paul had taught nothing of the<br />
practice, but had rather expended his energy on preaching the gospel of Christ. 46 Hus<br />
39 Among a variety of sermon texts the following are especially cogent in their articulation of <strong>this</strong> theme:<br />
“Dixit Martha ad Iesum,” in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus . . . Positiones, recommendationes, sermones 158<br />
<strong>and</strong> 165, Sermon for the Third Sunday of Advent, Opera Omnia 7:46, Sermon for Christmas Eve, ibid. 64<br />
<strong>and</strong> 72, Sermon for Epiphany, ibid. 74, Sermon for Easter,ibid. 180-1, Sermon for Epiphany, ibid. 74-5<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sermon for the Third Sunday of Advent, ibid. 42.<br />
40 Sermon for Palm Sunday, preaching on Philippians 2:5, Opera Omnia 7:167-70.<br />
41<br />
Put forth in his sermon “Spiritum nolite extinguere” in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus . . . Positiones,<br />
recommendationes, sermones 141.<br />
42 Hus, Sermo I in Quadragesima, Opera Omnia 7:123.<br />
43 Spiritum nolite extinguere in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones, recommendationes, sermones<br />
142-3. On the topic of salvation one may consult with benefit C. Daniel Crews, “The Theology of John Hus<br />
with special reference to his concepts of Salvation,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of<br />
Manchester, 1975. Crews uses a number of Hus’ sermons consistently to demonstrate the doctrine of<br />
salvation espoused by the Prague preacher.<br />
44 ”Wider Hans Worst”, 1541, in Luthers Werke 51: 538.<br />
45 This in his sermon for St. Wenceslas’ Day (28 September 1411 or 1412). The text is Mt 16. Flajšhans<br />
dates the sermon to 1411 though it was probably the latter. See Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in<br />
Bethlehem 1410-1411 5: 80-2 at 82.<br />
46 Sermon on the feast day of St. Laurence from the text of II Corinthians 6. Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus
114<br />
declared the proffering of indulgences pompous <strong>and</strong> an arrogant affront to Christ.<br />
In a sermon Hus inferred that such priests actually preached to their congregations in<br />
<strong>this</strong> manner: “You knaves! We can give you the Holy Ghost or send you to hell.” 47 The<br />
preaching of reformation divested clerics of that assumed power <strong>and</strong> declared that God<br />
alone possessed the authority of salvation <strong>and</strong> damnation. As Christ in the Apocalypse<br />
of St. John asserts: “I have the keys of death <strong>and</strong> hell” (1:18).<br />
The theology of Jan Hus expressed in his sermons centered around the tripartite<br />
advent of Christ. In his sermon for the First Sunday of Advent Hus explained the threefold<br />
coming of Christ. The first visit was as a child through the Virgin Mary. The second<br />
visitation was spiritual through divine grace. The third coming of Christ lay in the future<br />
in the day of judgment. Knowing these things, Hus preached, “we ought to be diligent<br />
in the practice of right living. [Christ] came in his incarnation to secure salvation, by<br />
grace he comes to us <strong>and</strong> for the third time he will appear in judgment to provide for us<br />
a kingdom which shall have no end.” 48 Final judgment is a theme in his sermons. In his<br />
preaching, Hus becomes “an eschatological figure <strong>and</strong> his preaching is an<br />
eschatological act.” 49 Thus far the preaching of reformation by Hus is entirely<br />
consistent with the teachings of the official church.<br />
Hus’ sermons are less orthodox on the subjects of authority <strong>and</strong> the nature of<br />
the church. He stood firmly upon the medieval <strong>and</strong> social theories regarding authority.<br />
Unlike Wyclif, Hus did not reject canon law. However, in a sermon on 22 June 1410<br />
Hus rejected the authority of the local hierarchy but in the same year made it clear that<br />
authority was legitimate insofar as it adhered to the law of Christ. 50 In 1410 after<br />
Archbishop Zbyněk carried out the destruction of more than 200 volumes of the works<br />
of John Wyclif, despite the protests of many including Hus, the preacher in the<br />
Bethlehem Chapel preached sermons to overflowing crowds appealing to the word of<br />
God as the principle rule in what was rightly interpreted as a challenge both to temporal<br />
<strong>and</strong> ecclesiastical authorities. Hus’ sermons perceived Christ, not Peter, as the rock<br />
upon which the church was founded <strong>and</strong> built. The church was defined in Hus’<br />
preaching, as the whole number of the elect: totus numerus predestinatorum. His<br />
extant Sermo de ecclesia from 19 January 1410 dealt with the scriptural <strong>and</strong> doctrinal<br />
foundations of the church wherein Hus contended that the church was comprised not<br />
of popes <strong>and</strong> cardinals but of the predestinate. 51 In his De ecclesia in 1413 Hus<br />
restated <strong>this</strong> conviction. “The pope is neither the head of the holy, universal catholic<br />
church, nor do the cardinals constitute the body.” 52 As in De ecclesia, the early<br />
sermons preached by Hus consistently identified Christ, not Peter, as the rock upon<br />
Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411 4: 328-32; see especially 330.<br />
47 ”Et presertim sacerdotes pomposi, qui dicunt: ‘Ribaldi, nos possumus vos mittere in infernum et eciam<br />
dare spiritum sanctum.’” Preaching from the text of John 10 on Tuesday after Pentecost. Flajšhans, ed.,<br />
Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411 4: 163-72 at 171.<br />
48 Jeschke, Postilla 13-15.<br />
49 Peter C.A. Morée, Preaching in Fourteenth-Century Bohemia: The Life <strong>and</strong> Ideas of Milicius de Chremsir<br />
(+1374) <strong>and</strong> his Significance in the Historiography of Bohemia (Heršpice, 1999) 165.<br />
50 Jan Sedlák, M. Jan Hus (Prague, 1915) 116-26 <strong>and</strong> 156.<br />
51 Sedlák, M. Jan Hus 123; De ecclesia 51-2.<br />
52 De ecclesia 51-2.
115<br />
which the church had been built. 53 In support of his proposition Hus called upon<br />
St. Augustine’s Retractationes <strong>and</strong> appealed also to the Pauline conclusion of the first<br />
Corinthian letter (3:11): “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid,<br />
which is Jesus Christ.” His later sermons continued to define the church in <strong>this</strong> manner.<br />
This would find cogent expression in his De ecclesia. “The holy, catholic, universal<br />
church is the totality of those predestined (omnium predestinatorium universitas) that is<br />
to say, all those predestined, past, present <strong>and</strong> future.” 54 Hence, Christ remained the<br />
head of the holy, universal church. The community of the faithful constituted his body,<br />
the predestined were part of <strong>this</strong> body <strong>and</strong> as such belonged to the church. Hus based<br />
his theology on the grounds of divine wisdom <strong>and</strong> purpose. Once again an Augustinian<br />
influence emerges.<br />
Throughout his tenure as preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel Hus raised the ire of<br />
the clergy by consistently denouncing clerical misconduct. His earliest sermons contain<br />
denunciations of the sc<strong>and</strong>als of clerics; 55 his later sermons condemned priests for<br />
their lack of concern for their specific ministries. 56 Bishops, priests <strong>and</strong> canons came<br />
under the censure of the preacher in Bethlehem Chapel. Hus deplored the<br />
commonplace of hurrying through the liturgy <strong>and</strong> then rushing out to secular duties,<br />
dances <strong>and</strong> other forms of debauchery. Jan Železný, Bishop of Litomyšl, would hurry<br />
from a celebration of the mass, lay aside his vestments, put on armour, mount a stallion<br />
<strong>and</strong> head off to battle. The bishop became the general within minutes. Hus castigated<br />
such clerics as unfaithful <strong>and</strong> devilish in the manner of Judas of old. 57 Hus reserved his<br />
most severe invectives for those who filled ecclesiastical offices <strong>and</strong> abused the<br />
privilege entrusted to them.<br />
Priests are now sent that they would not preach but that they will fill their bags<br />
[28 October 1411]. . . . They deserve hanging in hell [26 April 1411] . . . . They<br />
w<strong>and</strong>er as bulls in heat, they are not worthy of anything other than sitting in the<br />
kitchen <strong>and</strong> feeding their bellies [24 June 1411] . . . . The voice of some of the<br />
spiritual ones is as the devil <strong>and</strong> praise themselves for it, being immoral <strong>and</strong><br />
against preaching in the chapel. Egotistical preachers cry in a high voice like<br />
wolves [2 June 1411]. These priests are parasites, whose work is as nothing in<br />
the Church, <strong>and</strong> are not real spiritual fathers [7 June 1411]. . . . They serve mass<br />
for the sake of money, <strong>and</strong> then gamble for <strong>this</strong> money. They are money misers<br />
. . . . these become fat swine [5 July 1411]. We resemble the swine who are in<br />
the mud, as long as there fall for us husks, we roll in the mud <strong>and</strong> eat them but<br />
when the husks stop coming we raise our heads from the mud <strong>and</strong> look for<br />
more husks . . . . If a common man admonishes a priest who is immoral, he<br />
receives <strong>this</strong> answer from the priest: “What are you trying to preach to me? Did I<br />
53 Sermones de sanctis, ed., Flajšhans 7: 80-4.<br />
54 De ecclesia 2.<br />
55 Sermo in Dominica Secunda Quadragesime Opera Omnia 7:130.<br />
56 An example of <strong>this</strong> is the dossier complied after more than 300 parish visitations in the Archdiocese of<br />
Prague in the later fourteenth century. Ivan Hlaváček <strong>and</strong> Zdeňka Hledíková, eds, Protocollum visitationis<br />
archidiaconatus Pragensis annis 1379-1382 per Paulum de Janowicz archidiaconum Pragensem factae<br />
(Prague, 1973).<br />
57<br />
This is his sermon for the Second Sunday after Christmas. Hus was preaching on the text of Lk 2:42-52.<br />
Jeschke, Postilla 42.
116<br />
tend the plow with you?” [3 May 1411] . . . . “I am to serve in my office for the<br />
glory of God, serve mass so that I can accumulate a large offering” – those who<br />
say <strong>this</strong> <strong>and</strong> do so are in corruption. They are drunks, whose stomachs growl<br />
with great drinking; are gluttons whose stomach is overfilled until their double<br />
chins hang down [3 December 1410]. 58<br />
His frequent use of the term “we” in describing the clergy may suggest that Hus did not<br />
assume a posture of self-righteousness but instead included himself among the<br />
preachers in need of consistent accountability <strong>and</strong> reform. All of these themes had<br />
been intoned earlier. Clerics committing fornication were sons of Satan <strong>and</strong> without<br />
correction, repentence <strong>and</strong> a change in lifestyle ought to be excommunicated <strong>and</strong><br />
expelled from their office. The practice of simony, rooted as it was in avarice, led to<br />
a spiritual divesting of the church. Simoniacs, or “the Lord’s fat ones”, came under<br />
special <strong>and</strong> continual censure in Hus’ sermons as noted below.<br />
In 1405 Hus was appointed synodal preacher in Prague. At the convocations of<br />
the Synod of Prague Hus frequently used such occasions to remonstrate with his fellow<br />
priests <strong>and</strong> to engage in the preaching of reformation. His synodal sermons of 1405<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1407 particularly called the clergy to accountability. 59 In his 1405 sermon Hus<br />
invoked the authority of Bernard of Clairvaux in contrasting the lives of fifteenth-century<br />
clerics with that of Christ. He puts these words in the mouth of Christ: “Everyone who<br />
passes by, pause <strong>and</strong> consider if there has been any sorrow like mine. Clothed in these<br />
rags I weep while my priests go about in scarlet. I suffer great agony in a sweat of<br />
blood while they take delight in luxurious bathing. All through the night I am mocked<br />
<strong>and</strong> spat upon while they enjoy feasting <strong>and</strong> drunkenness. I groan upon the cross as<br />
they repose upon the softest beds.” 60 Hus appealed to his colleagues to ab<strong>and</strong>on the<br />
pursuit of material wealth, ecclesiastical ambition <strong>and</strong> the acquisition of temporal<br />
property. In its place Hus dem<strong>and</strong>ed imitatio Christi <strong>and</strong> a pursuit of godly virtue. Hus<br />
accused many of his colleagues of having taken holy orders with the singular desire to<br />
feed themselves <strong>and</strong> gain wealth by appropriating money from the poor in the manner<br />
of Judas Iscariot. 61 Such clerics do not feed the sheep. Instead Hus declared that in<br />
their h<strong>and</strong>s the keys were used to gain worldly power rather than opening the doors to<br />
the kindgom of God. 62 Hus’ consistent, strident calls for a reform of the church in head<br />
<strong>and</strong> in members attracted resistance from several quarters. Spies were placed in the<br />
Bethlehem Chapel <strong>and</strong> made regular reports on the content of the sermons preached<br />
58 These extracts are taken from Hus’ sermons in Flajšhans, ed., Mag Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem<br />
1410-1411. Feast of SS. Simon <strong>and</strong> Jude, on the parallel texts of Mt 10, Lk 9 <strong>and</strong> Mk 3 ibid. 5:131-4;<br />
Second Sunday after Easter, on Jn 10 ibid. 4:77-80 at 78; Feast of S. John the Baptist, on Lk 1, ibid.<br />
4:220-24; Tuesday after Pentecost, on Jn 10, ibid. 4: 163-72; Trinity Sunday, on Jn 3, ibid. 4:177-83;<br />
Fourth Sunday after Trinity, on Lk 6, ibid. 4: 258-61; “czo ty mye mass chlape kazaty, zprawy swoy pluh a<br />
roly.” Third Sunday after Easter, on 1 Pt 2, ibid. 4:104-108 at 107; <strong>and</strong> ibid. 2:3-6.<br />
59 His synodal sermon preached at the archiepiscopal palace on 19 October 1405 titled “Love the Lord<br />
Thy God . . .” is notable for its unrelenting assault on the mischief that Prague clergy ostensibly were<br />
engaging in. His sermon in 1407 constituted a classic denunciation of clerical abuses. He used the text,<br />
“st<strong>and</strong> therefore, having girded your loins with truth….”<br />
60 Historia et Monumenta 2:25-31.<br />
61<br />
Sermon on the Feast of St. John the Evangelist. Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem<br />
1410-1411 2:154-62 at 157.<br />
62 Flajšhans, ed., Sermones de sanctis 6:86.
117<br />
there. 63 In 1408 members of the Prague clergy accused Hus of preaching sc<strong>and</strong>alous<br />
sermons before great congregations, composed of men <strong>and</strong> women. These sermons<br />
his peers alleged caused the common people to hate the priesthood. 64<br />
The city of Christ stood opposed to the city of antichrist in Hussite iconography<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hus used the distinction to drive home his emphases on moral reform. The house<br />
of God built on the foundations of faith <strong>and</strong> virtue had as its four corners courage,<br />
modesty, justice <strong>and</strong> prudence. 65 The gods of the world were identified by Hus as<br />
avarice, gluttony, lechery, pride <strong>and</strong> the hatred of Christ. 66 The preaching of<br />
reformation sought both to uphold the house of God <strong>and</strong> destroy the gods of the world.<br />
The distinction can also be found in Hus’ preaching on the nature of the church. 67<br />
Following the imposition of interdict upon Prague in 1412 Hus retired to south<br />
Bohemia where he continued his to preach. He began preaching in towns <strong>and</strong><br />
marketplaces, in rural villages, in the forest, in fields, in barns <strong>and</strong> outside castles. 68<br />
His preaching became increasingly recalcitrant <strong>and</strong> began to exhibit ideas now in the<br />
shadows of orthodoxy. In his Postil Hus condemned the pride of the papacy <strong>and</strong><br />
denounced the veneration of the office as blasphemous <strong>and</strong> offensive to Christ. 69 Hus<br />
identified Rome as the pinnacle of antichrist wherein the evils of pride, sexual<br />
immorality, hypocrisy <strong>and</strong> simoniacal greed were most evident. 70 In <strong>this</strong> identification<br />
Hus essentially divorced the official church from the aforementioned house of God <strong>and</strong><br />
seemed to place her among the gods of the world. According to Hus, the only reliable<br />
means for ascertaining whether a pope was the vicar of Christ or the minister of<br />
antichrist was contingent on that pope conforming to boží zákon [the Law of God] both<br />
in lifestyle <strong>and</strong> administration. “The one who acts contrary to Christ” in these matters is<br />
a member of antichrist. Among his early sermons we find the suggestion that a pope<br />
persisting in conduct unbecoming to holiness <strong>and</strong> godliness might in fact be deprived<br />
63 See Documenta 176.<br />
64 Documenta 154-5.<br />
65 These two motifs formed an essential component in the propag<strong>and</strong>a of the Hussite movement. Pictures<br />
positing the two cities as implacable foes appeared in the Jena Codex, Prague, National Museum Library<br />
MS. IV B 24, ff. 10 b -11 a . There is a brief description in Fudge, “Visual Heresy <strong>and</strong> the Communication of<br />
Ideas in the Hussite <strong>Reformation</strong>,” 132. Hus’ articulation is in his Postil. See Karel J. Erben, ed., Mistri<br />
Jana Husi: Sebrané spisy české 2:422.<br />
66 See Hus’ Výklad na páteř [Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer], Opera Omnia 1:388.<br />
67 See for example his sermon on the text of Gal 4:30 wherein Hus draws a line between the church of<br />
Christ <strong>and</strong> the church of the wicked. Schmidtová, Sermo in Dominica Quarta Quadragesime Opera Omnia<br />
7:150-1.<br />
68 Knížky proti knězi kuchmistrovi [Books against the priest cookmaster], in Opera Omnia 4:312 <strong>and</strong> Staří<br />
letopisové čeští od r. 1378 do 1527 [Old Czech annalists from 1378 to 1527] František Palacký in<br />
Scriptores rerum bohemicarum (Prague, 1829) 3: 471-2.<br />
69 Jeschke, Postilla 147.<br />
70 Jeschke, Postilla 21. In a letter to Křišt’an of Prachatice in April 1413 Hus drew <strong>this</strong> contrast. “. . . in that<br />
holy place where sat the holiest, most pious, gentlest, humblest, poorest, most untiring, most patient,<br />
most chaste man . . . now sits a man called most holy, but in reality the worst, cruellest, most vindictive,<br />
proudest, richest in the world, laziest, most impatient, <strong>and</strong> most unchaste . . . .” Hus concluded he had<br />
identified the “abomination of desolation.” In The Letters of John Hus, ed., Matthew Spinka (Manchester,<br />
1972) 100.
118<br />
of office by the clergy. 71 Referring to the text of Mt 18:6 Hus deplored the offences<br />
perpetrated by the clergy. “Dear Christ! Should all who offend others by pernicious<br />
behavior be drowned, there would be left very few lawyers <strong>and</strong> priests. From the pope<br />
on down there are few not guilty of greed, pride <strong>and</strong> fornication, to say nothing of<br />
monks <strong>and</strong> priests living in concubinage.” 72<br />
Hussite iconography from around 1412 throughout the fifteenth-century regularly<br />
portrayed Christ <strong>and</strong> the pope in contrasting ways. One example featured Christ<br />
washing the feet of his disciples while the pope had his feet kissed by monks. Another<br />
was that of Christ <strong>and</strong> the pope passing through town. This motif can be found in the<br />
sermons of Hus. While Christ rode on a small donkey, the pope sat upon a large white<br />
horse or war horse. The pope’s stallion had a golden bridle, the harnessing was<br />
decorated with precious stones <strong>and</strong> colored tassels hung down to the ground. So<br />
opulent did the pope appear that the people barely noticed <strong>and</strong> paid no heed to the<br />
lowly Christ passing by on his humble donkey. Instead they knelt before the pope,<br />
adored him, declared his holiness as he rode beneath a richly embroidered canopy.<br />
According to Hus, the pope enjoyed the scene as multitudes pressed together<br />
attempting to get near <strong>and</strong> took great pleasure in the praise being lavished upon him.<br />
All the while, Hus preached, Christ passed by on a small donkey weeping, ignored <strong>and</strong><br />
humiliated. The preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel declared that such a scene<br />
accurately reflected the state of affairs in the official church in later medieval Europe<br />
<strong>and</strong> was blasphemy against Christ <strong>and</strong> the Word of God. Moreover, it patently bore the<br />
marks of antichrist. 73 This was not an isolated example of Hus’ attitude in the preaching<br />
of reformation. His sermons <strong>and</strong> writings are peppered with denunciations against the<br />
spirit of antichrist which Hus felt was pervasive in the Latin church at the end of the<br />
Middle Ages. Yet even in these strong words we find Hus continuing to refer to the curia<br />
as the ministers of Christ. 74 This may suggest that in the preaching of reformation Jan<br />
Hus continued to be reticent about equating completely the official church with the<br />
gods of <strong>this</strong> world. In <strong>this</strong> posture he reveals himself to be less of a radical preacher<br />
<strong>and</strong> reformer than Wyclif, Jakoubek of StÍíbro <strong>and</strong>, later, Jan Želivský.<br />
One of the critical elements in the eventual downfall of Jan Hus was his<br />
presumed intellectual <strong>and</strong> spiritual alliance with the English archheretic John Wyclif.<br />
That question cannot be explored here in any detail. Sufficient to say, Wyclif severed all<br />
moorings with the official church in 1380 when he published his De eucharistia. That<br />
treatise constituted a full-scale attack upon the doctrine of the sacrament of the<br />
eucharist. 75 A commission at Oxford declared it heretical. With <strong>this</strong> verdict Wyclif lost<br />
the support of his protector John of Gaunt <strong>and</strong> was subsequently banished from Oxford<br />
University. He retired to his parish in Lutterworth, defiantly breathing out further<br />
fulminations against the papacy <strong>and</strong> the official church. It was his heresy with respect to<br />
the eucharist which gave him such notoriety. In essence, Wyclif’s acceptance of the<br />
philosophical position of realism had as a consequence his public denial of<br />
71 Sermo in Dominica infra Octavam Nativitatis Domini, Opera Omnia 7:92.<br />
72 Jeschke, Postilla 312.<br />
73 Jeschke, Postilla 146-7.<br />
74<br />
In his sermon “Vos estis sal terre,” in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones, recommendationes,<br />
sermones 149.<br />
75 Johann Loserth, ed., Iohannis Wyclif, De eucharistia tractatus maior (London, 1892).
119<br />
transubstantiation. In its place Wyclif advanced the theory of remanence. Jan Hus was<br />
charged with following the Englishman into <strong>this</strong> error. While Hus steadfastly denied the<br />
chargeC<strong>and</strong> his denials can easily be buttressed by an examination of his writings: it<br />
persisted as an issue throughout his trial at the Council of Constance in 1415. 76 It is<br />
manifestly clear that Hus did not teach the Wyclifite doctrine of the sacrament of the<br />
altar. 77 The closest Hus appears to come to Wyclif was in his ninth sermon for Holy<br />
Trinity, 1413. While expounding on Mt 9:1-8 Hus declared it blasphemy to consider or<br />
teach that in the words of consecration a priest actually created the body of God in the<br />
mass. 78 This assertion was repeated by Hus at least once thereafter in print <strong>and</strong><br />
inscribed upon the wall at Bethlehem Chapel. 79 Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>this</strong>, only by the<br />
greatest stretch of the imagination can these comments in Hus’ Postil be construed as<br />
an attack upon the dogma of transubstantiation. Instead of challenging tradition Hus<br />
was decrying ecclesiastical abuses. Refraining comment entirely on the nature of the<br />
communion elements the Prague preacher was reserving for God the ability to create<br />
while declaring emphatically that humans, priests or otherwise, have not the power to<br />
create. Yet again the theology of Augustine is evident. This is substantially different<br />
from the themes developed by Wyclif in his works. Even during the early days of reform<br />
in Prague when the works of Wyclif were being publicly debated <strong>and</strong> defended it was<br />
not Hus but rather the erstwhile reformers Štěpán Páleč <strong>and</strong> Stanislav of Znojmo who<br />
defended vigorously Wyclif’s eucharistic propositions. Following these debates <strong>and</strong> the<br />
defection of both masters to the anti-reform side, Hus reminded them of their<br />
outspoken enthusiasm for heresy. In his Contra Stephanum Palecz of 1412 Hus<br />
suggested what may have been a painful recollection for Páleč “Can you not recall the<br />
arguments of your colleague Stanislav, who, before the assembly of the university<br />
withstood calls for the condemnation of those articles [of Wyclif on the eucharist]. Can<br />
you not recall how you approved those articles?” 80 That Wyclif was one of Hus’<br />
sources, even in preaching, cannot be denied. His sermon, “Vos estis sal terre” in 1410<br />
quite clearly is dependent on Wyclif especially in the early stages. 81 But even overt <strong>and</strong><br />
acknowledged influence does not necessarily inculpate one in heresy, a fact Hus’<br />
judges appear not to have considered.<br />
On the matter of the sacrament, Hus appears to have always maintained the<br />
traditional doctrine. His early sermons reflect his position. Moreover, his Postil, written<br />
in exile contains clear articulation of Hus’ position that in the sacrament the elements of<br />
bread <strong>and</strong> wine are changed into the body <strong>and</strong> blood of Christ. 82 This is entirely<br />
consistently with the medieval dogma of transubstantiation <strong>and</strong> completely at odds with<br />
76 There were several discussions during the proceedings. See for example Matthew Spinka, ed., John<br />
Hus at the Council of Constance (New York, 1965) 167-9, 215, 227.<br />
77 His sermon for Trinity Sunday described the sacrament in traditional terms. Opera Omnia 7:281. Indeed,<br />
the corpus of Hus’ writings demonstrate his conviction in the mass as a sacrifice offered to God<br />
underscored by an acceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation. See for example his De ecclesia 48.<br />
78 Jeschke, Postilla 411.<br />
79 Hus, De sex erroribus which survives in more than 20 manuscripts. This an edition in Bohumil Ryba,<br />
Betlemské texty (Prague, 1951) 39-63 for the Latin text <strong>and</strong> 65-104 for the Czech.<br />
80 The text appears in Magistri Iohannis Hus: Polemica, Opera Omnia 22:233-69 at 265.<br />
81 Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones, recommendationes, sermones 149-56.<br />
82 Jeschke, Postilla 92.
120<br />
the theory of Wyclif concerning the eucharist. Distinguishing between spiritual <strong>and</strong><br />
sacramental communing, Hus asserted that the one without mortal sin partaking<br />
receives the body of Christ both spiritually <strong>and</strong> sacramentally, while those who<br />
commune unworthily receive a sacramental condemnation. According to Hus the<br />
sacrament of the altar symbolized the death of Christ, remitted sins, provided the<br />
Christian with a defence against temptation <strong>and</strong> sin, communicated divine grace <strong>and</strong> in<br />
the end was the means for receiving eternal life. 83<br />
It was not Wyclif, however, who played the principle rôle of influence in Hus’<br />
sermons. In his book De ecclesia Hus made reference by citation or otherwise to<br />
Augustine more than one hundred times. 84 Hus’ sermons reveal a similar dependence.<br />
Early sermons indicate that concepts <strong>and</strong> language had been borrowed from the<br />
church father. 85 While all of <strong>this</strong> is true it is possible that the Augustinian influence upon<br />
Master Hus was not always that of Augustine. Frequently, Hus misquoted or misattributed<br />
quotations. Hence, there are times when Hus cited Augustine but in reality<br />
was confusing Augustine with Gregory or some other ecclesiastical luminary. 86 Even in<br />
light of the evidence demonstrating numerous citation errors Augustine remained a<br />
fundamental influence upon Hus in the latter’s preaching of reformation.<br />
Most of Hus’ extant sermons were prepared in Latin thus the majority of the<br />
sermon texts are in Latin, though Hus delivered them in Czech. This assumption is<br />
supported by the fact that the bulk of his sermons were preached in the Bethlehem<br />
Chapel which had been founded specifically in 1391 for preaching in the vernacular.<br />
Having prepared the sermon in Latin, Hus then preached his message in the common<br />
language, probably in a freer, extemporaneous manner. The same could be said for<br />
many of the later Hussite preachers such as Priest Jan Želivský (+1422) who would<br />
prove to be the most popular preacher in Prague after the death of Jan Hus. 87 The<br />
extant outlines of Hus’ sermons are fairly extensive with an abundance of biblical <strong>and</strong><br />
patristic quotations, a point underscored by scholars who have studied Hus’<br />
sermons. 88 His preaching style was direct <strong>and</strong> personable. Frequently, Hus addressed<br />
his audience in Bethlehem Chapel according to their occupations: “Beloved in Christ,<br />
my fellow tailors, clerks, shoemakers, bootmakers . . . .” Hus’ quotation of biblical texts<br />
in his sermons avoided the use of technical, archaic Czech <strong>and</strong> utilized language close<br />
to colloquial speech. 89 This was an integral aspect of preaching the reformation in<br />
Bohemia. Hus endeavoured to speak on the level of his audience <strong>and</strong> thus we find him<br />
making constant reference to the practical experiences of daily life in Prague. Though<br />
83 Šimek, ed., Mistr Jan Hus: Česká kázání sváteční 96-9.<br />
84 Paul De Vooght, Hussiana (Louvain, 1960) 66.<br />
85 See for example Hus’ sermons for Palm Sunday, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday 1404-5, <strong>and</strong> the sermons<br />
“Dixit Martha ad Iesum,” 157-78 <strong>and</strong> “Beati oculi,” 179-85 in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones,<br />
recommendations, sermones.<br />
86 Crews, “The Theology of John Hus with special reference to his concepts of Salvation,” 186.<br />
87 A recent evaluation of Želivský <strong>and</strong> his preaching can be found in David R. Holeton, “Revelation <strong>and</strong><br />
Revolution in Late Medieval Bohemia,” CV 36,1 (1994) 29-45, especially 37-43.<br />
88 For example Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton, 1966) 56.<br />
89 On the use of colloquialism in Hus’ sermons I am indebted to the observations of František Svejkovský,<br />
“The Conception of the ‘Vernacular’ in Czech Literature <strong>and</strong> Culture of the Fifteenth Century,” in Aspects<br />
of the Slavic Language Question, eds., Riccardo Picchio <strong>and</strong> Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven, 1984) 1: 333.
121<br />
the language used in the sermons was often blunt <strong>and</strong> concise Hus personalized the<br />
sermonic delivery by using the phrases us, we, you, <strong>and</strong> I to emphasize the relevant<br />
nature of his discourse. In his preaching Hus identified himself with sinners referred to<br />
in biblical pericopes. Occasionally he noted “ . . . the sinner himself, such as Hus . . . .”<br />
In his later career when his preaching became more radicalized the persistent use of<br />
we instead of they served to motivate the people to see themselves in the context of the<br />
sermon as the direct recipients of the implications of the gospel <strong>and</strong> the intended<br />
audience for the message of the biblical m<strong>and</strong>ates.<br />
On Christmas Day, 1413, Hus prepared a Christmas sermon in the form of<br />
a letter for his former congregation in the Bethlehem Chapel. It underscored the<br />
simplicity of his sermons, his straightforward approach <strong>and</strong> his general avoidance of<br />
theological abstraction.<br />
Dearly beloved! Today, as it were, an angel is saying to the shepherds: “I bring<br />
to you glad tidings of great joy for all people . . . .”As you remember these<br />
things, dear friends, be joyful for today God has been born in flesh in order that<br />
there may be glory to God in the highest <strong>and</strong> on earth, peace <strong>and</strong> good will<br />
among humankind. Be joyful that today the infinitely great one has been born<br />
a child . . . . Be joyful that today a reconciler has been born in order to reconcile<br />
humans with God . . . . Be joyful that today one has been born in order to<br />
cleanse sinners from sin . . . in order that there may be glory to God in the<br />
highest . . . . Be joyful with exceeding great joy that today a king has been born<br />
<strong>and</strong> has come to distribute the fullness of the kingdom of heaven . . . . Be joyful<br />
that today God has become bread for the hungry <strong>and</strong> refreshment for the weary<br />
that there may be peace on earth. Be joyful that as the eternal God has been<br />
born, we mortals may live forever. Be joyful that the rich lord of the universe lies<br />
in a manger as a poor person in order that he may make all needy people rich . .<br />
. . that there may be glory to God in the highest. . . . Be joyful that today is born<br />
one who can free us from all misery . . . . there is born <strong>this</strong> day one to comfort<br />
the sorrowful that there may be glory to God in the highest <strong>and</strong> peace on earth<br />
for all people. May it please the God born <strong>this</strong> day to grant to us that good will,<br />
peace <strong>and</strong> joy. 90<br />
This Christmas meditation is representative of Hus’ sermons in terms of style, tone,<br />
language <strong>and</strong> message. Even in exile the pastor continued as shepherd.<br />
In the preaching of reformation Hus emphatically called his parishioners to an<br />
intimate underst<strong>and</strong>ing of their faith <strong>and</strong> a personal experience of the reality of Christ.<br />
“<strong>Feel</strong> <strong>this</strong>!” His Palm Sunday sermon for 1406 noted earlier is a classic witness. The<br />
sermon functioned in the reform program of Hus as a vehicle for bringing together the<br />
spiritual <strong>and</strong> the worldly <strong>and</strong> in that union an opportunity for grace, revival <strong>and</strong> reform.<br />
The preaching of reformation consistently removed the gospel from its biblical<br />
context <strong>and</strong> placed it squarely within Czech parameters. For example, Hus sermon on<br />
the Feast of St. Stephen, 1410 likened Prague to the biblical Jerusalem. Where Jesus<br />
once said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who murders the prophets,” so now Christ called<br />
in Hus’ voice, “O Prague, Prague, who murders my prophets, Milíč, Konrad <strong>and</strong> Matěj,<br />
<strong>and</strong> stones them!” 91 Further, “if Prague will not receive the gospel, then she shall suffer<br />
90 Novotný no. 71.<br />
91 “Venient hec omnia super generacionem istam, peccatricem, homicidarum, maledictam hec
122<br />
as did Bethsaida, Capernaum <strong>and</strong> Sodom . . . .” 92 The style of Hus’ sermons is<br />
generally consistent with the style of preaching in the later Middle Ages, especially in its<br />
allegorical, anagogic <strong>and</strong> tropological dimensions. 93 His preaching was particularly<br />
pedagogical <strong>and</strong> exhortatory, always with the goal of moral transformation <strong>and</strong> spiritual<br />
awakening. The form of many sermons was distinctively aesthetical in their use of<br />
prose writing, declensions, the old Czech rhyme <strong>and</strong> poetic forms. Hus’ sermons also<br />
employed the vehicles of sarcasm, irony, warning, instruction, admonition, <strong>and</strong><br />
encouragement. Many of the extant sermons of Hus were of course taken down in<br />
shorth<strong>and</strong> by hearers <strong>and</strong> thus the problem of accuracy becomes a concern in any<br />
scholarly investigation of them. The printed sermons reflect one response to the<br />
disadvantages of preaching noted earlier. Preachers like Jan Milíč of Kroměříž made<br />
available the texts of his sermons to be copied by scribes in order that what was<br />
preached one day theoretically might be circulated the next. 94 While the printed sermon<br />
texts certainly reached a potentially wider audience there remains the problem of<br />
literacy <strong>and</strong> the reality that printed texts almost without exception lack the fiery emotion<br />
<strong>and</strong> appeal which must have accompanied the oral delivery in the preaching of<br />
reformation. These printed versions of verbal texts provide more evidence of Jan Hus<br />
as a teacher, scholar <strong>and</strong> writer than they do of Hus the preacher. 95<br />
For Jan Hus, preaching was the chief task of the pastor. This is clear from his De<br />
quinque officiis sacerdotis wherein Hus listed the duties of a priest <strong>and</strong> made preaching<br />
the primary item. 96 “God has instructed we priests to preach <strong>and</strong> give witness. This is<br />
the m<strong>and</strong>ate of all preachers, none are excluded. There is no other comm<strong>and</strong> even<br />
from the common people than to preach the word of God.” 97 Yet all around, Hus<br />
declared, were priests failing to fulfil the duty of their office which was to preach the<br />
gospel. 98 In his sermon Vos estis sal terre, Hus applied the metaphor of salt principally<br />
to the priesthood. Through preaching, <strong>this</strong> salt provided seasoning which brought<br />
vindictarum genera - et ad confirmacionem huius geminat bis, dicens: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem!’: nominis<br />
repeticio est signum compassionis et vindicte; i.e. habitatores Jerusalem, per methonimiam figuram<br />
super malos loquitur, quia multi in Jerusalem sancti erant, qui aurabant eum, et super illos non fuit<br />
locutus. Et eciam dicit posset: ‘Praho, Praho!’, homines malos denot<strong>and</strong>o, qui sanctos predicatores<br />
persecuntur que occidis prophetas: hanyely kazatele, Milicze, Conrada, Matyege….” Flajšhans, ed., Mag.<br />
Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411 2:142-7; see 146-7. Hus’ text was Mt 23.<br />
92<br />
Sermon on the Feast of St. Matthias 1411, on Mt 11 <strong>and</strong> Lk 10 in Flajšhans, ed., ibid. 2:262-6, especially<br />
262-3.<br />
93 Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church 57.<br />
94 Our information on <strong>this</strong> comes from the Narracio de Milicio in Regulae 3:367. It is doubtful that 200-300<br />
scribes were working on the copy process at any one time as the anonymous fourteenth-century author<br />
suggests.<br />
95 Šmahel, “Literacy <strong>and</strong> Heresy in Hussite Bohemia,” 243.<br />
96 My attention was drawn to <strong>this</strong> fact by the short but instructive article by David R. Holeton, “Liturgická<br />
a svátostná teologie mistra Jana Husa: Byl Jan Hus reformátorem liturgie?” [The Liturgical <strong>and</strong><br />
Sacramental Theology of Jan Hus: Was Jan Hus a Liturgical Reformer?] Theologická revue 67,1 (1996)<br />
11.<br />
97<br />
Sermon on Monday after Pentecost 1 June 1411 on Acts 10. Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in<br />
Bethlehem 1410-1411 4: 160-3 at 161.<br />
98 Sermon on the Feast of SS. Simon <strong>and</strong> Jude, 1411 on the parallel gospel pericopes of Mt 10, Lk 9 <strong>and</strong><br />
Mk 3. Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411 5: 131-4 at 133.
123<br />
hearers to Christ. 99 If preaching was the chief task of the priest, Hus was able also to<br />
enumerate the several benefits preaching held for those who faithfully attended the<br />
sermon. Those benefits included stimulating reason, aid in eliminating sin, comfort in<br />
controlling evil desire, destroying the propensity toward carnality <strong>and</strong> sin, keeping the<br />
enemies of salvation at bay, <strong>and</strong> finally a channel of divine grace. 100 Thus, when<br />
ordered to desist from his regular preaching, Hus refused to comply. 101 In defiance to<br />
the order Hus appealed <strong>and</strong> introduced his appeal in a sermon. 102 In a letter to the<br />
supreme court of Bohemia Hus admitted, “. . . I am not willing to obey either the pope<br />
or the archbishop in their prohibition of my preaching, for it is contrary to God <strong>and</strong> to<br />
my salvation.” 103 Hus’ refusal to comply with the authorities on <strong>this</strong> matter was<br />
something he consistently drew public attention to. In his sermon for Palm Sunday<br />
1411 Hus insinuated that the use of the vernacular in the Bethlehem Chapel was at the<br />
heart of the issue to stop his preaching.<br />
The devil has taken notice of <strong>this</strong> <strong>and</strong> now he attempts to persuade masters,<br />
priests <strong>and</strong> lawyers to denounce those who sing praises to God. . . . They insist<br />
that those who do so should be silent. . . . In the name of God they say, “we<br />
curse in Jesus’ name everyone who goes to Bethlehem [Chapel] <strong>and</strong> also all<br />
those who sing [in the vernacular] God has arisen from the dead, Christ Jesus,<br />
bountiful priest . . . .” But Jesus the Lord responds to those who raise such<br />
objections: “Indeed, I say to you, if these people are silent, then rocks will speak<br />
up.” Know <strong>this</strong> that the meek, ignorant ones will sing regardless of your<br />
complaints. The humble people shall sing with great joy to the savior of mercy,<br />
Christ Jesus. 104<br />
In his fourth sermon for Pentecost 1411, while preaching from the text of Jn 6:1-14 Hus<br />
digressed into the prohibition against preaching <strong>and</strong> dismissed it as an “unworthy” <strong>and</strong><br />
“evil scheme”. 105 In his fourth Trinity sermon, preaching on the text of Lk 14:16-24 Hus<br />
again condemned the prohibition. 106 In his Trinity V sermon on Lk 5:1-11 yet again the<br />
defiant preacher underscored his refusal to obey the decree. 107 According to Hus,<br />
a good priest was a true servant of Christ <strong>and</strong> in his spiritual office was therefore of<br />
greater dignity than the secular king. Thus the comm<strong>and</strong>s of Christ, in <strong>this</strong> instance to<br />
preach, superseded all comm<strong>and</strong>s to the contrary. The king, however, was also<br />
ordained of God <strong>and</strong> was thus, in his secular office of greater importance than the<br />
priest. 108 Yet Jan Hus claimed that obedience to God was of greater significance than<br />
99 Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones, recommendationes, sermones 114.<br />
100 Jeschke, Postilla 28.<br />
101<br />
The decree, “Alex<strong>and</strong>er pp. V Zbynconem archiepiscopum Pragensem prohibere jubet ….”, was dated<br />
20 December 1409. In Documenta 374-6.<br />
102 Documenta 405 <strong>and</strong> 281.<br />
103 See the text of the letter in The Letters of John Hus 90-2.<br />
104 Jeschke, Postilla 151-3.<br />
105 Jeschke, Postilla 132-3.<br />
106 Jeschke, Postilla 281-2.<br />
107 Jeschke, Postilla 306.<br />
108 “Sed humilis sacerdotes dicant, quod sacerdos rite et sancte sacerdocio fruens est minister Christi et in<br />
supremo officio spirituali post Christum, post apostolos et Virginem Mariam. Et est in officio spirituali
124<br />
obedience to temporal authority. On 20 December 1410 he defended his preaching<br />
prerogative in a sermon on obedience. Not only did Hus withst<strong>and</strong> the order of the<br />
authorities, he suggested he would do all he could to impede those same authorities in<br />
their execution of that which he considered contrary to the Law of God.<br />
But someone will say, “Nevertheless you, Hus, do not want to be submissive to<br />
your prelates, do not hear your elders, not even the archbishop.” I respond: “I<br />
wish to be like Balaam’s ass. Because indeed the prelates of Balaam are seated<br />
upon me <strong>and</strong> desire to compel me to go against the comm<strong>and</strong>s of the Lord, to<br />
not preach. I will impair the feet of their desire <strong>and</strong> will not listen to them; but in<br />
freedom <strong>and</strong> honesty will be in subjection to God in all things, because the<br />
angel of the Lord st<strong>and</strong>s before me . . . .” 109<br />
Hus likewise proclaimed from his pulpit that should ecclesiastical leaders set forth ideas<br />
<strong>and</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>s contrary to the Law of God, people were under obligation neither to<br />
adhere to them nor obey. If fact, disobedience in such circumstances was entirely<br />
appropriate. 110 As one who stood squarely on the medieval ground of political <strong>and</strong><br />
social theory respecting order, Hus did regard civil <strong>and</strong> ecclesiastical authority as<br />
ordained by God. 111 The prelate <strong>and</strong> the prince had been given power to protect the<br />
good <strong>and</strong> hold in check the evil. 112 One should neither hinder nor impair the operation<br />
of the other. Hus’ opposition to the preaching of the cross in the crusading context is<br />
well known <strong>and</strong> indeed the point at which King Wenceslaus IV <strong>and</strong> Hus begin to go<br />
separate ways. The preaching of reformation included a firm critique of the offer to<br />
forgive sins to those aiding the holy war declared by crusading bulls. 113<br />
The charges of Donatism levelled against the Prague preacher are illegitimate<br />
though not without some basis. Hus did condemn unworthy ministrations of the divine<br />
service <strong>and</strong> clearly stated that priests in mortal sin were unworthy ministers. Yet, the<br />
sacraments <strong>and</strong> proclamation of the gospel by such individuals might still have great<br />
benefit for the hearers <strong>and</strong> those receiving the sacraments, even if it produced<br />
damnation in the unworthy priest. A sinful priest saying mass might bring<br />
condemnation on himself, but for the faithful it remained an untainted channel of grace<br />
dignior rege seculari. Et tunc rex, quia eque unctus sicund sacerdotos, est dignior in domino seculari<br />
quam sacerdos. Et ergo rex debet parere consilo sacerdotis in spiritualibus et sacerdos quilibet m<strong>and</strong>atis<br />
regis in temporalibus. Citra tamen illos duos racione officii in dignitate stat esse unam vetulum omnia<br />
m<strong>and</strong>ata Dei servantem non ex officio, sed vite sanctitate digniorem aput Deum.” Sermon on the Feast of<br />
the Assumption, 1411, based on Lk 10. Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411<br />
4:333-9 at 334.<br />
109 Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411 2:100-104 at 102.<br />
110<br />
This is in the sermon “you are the salt of the earth” in Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones,<br />
recommendationes, sermones 118.<br />
111 Enrico Molnar, “Wyclif, Hus <strong>and</strong> the problem of Authority,” in Ferdin<strong>and</strong> Seibt, ed. Jan Hus: Zwischen<br />
Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen (Munich, 1997) 167-182 at 175.<br />
112 Sermon on 30 March 1411, Monday after the First Sunday in Lent, on the text of Jonah 3. Flajšhans,<br />
ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem, 1410-1411 3:176-8.<br />
113 See for example his strongly-worded opposition in his Postil. Jeschke, Postilla 22-3. “Divná věc: sami<br />
nemohú sebe zbaviti blech a much, a pak chtie jiné zbaviti pekelných muk svým dáváním, ani sě modléce<br />
za to, ani dobřě jinak jsúce živi!= [How odd! They are impotent by themselves to get rid of fleas <strong>and</strong> flies.<br />
Yet they presume to relieve others of the sufferings of hell, by money, without praying or living well!] Ibid.<br />
22.
in the sense ex opere operato. 114<br />
125<br />
On 23 April 1411, preaching on Hebrews 13:17 Hus related his divine calling to<br />
preach the Word of God to the whole world <strong>and</strong> to withst<strong>and</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>s to the contrary<br />
even until death. Just before his death at the stake in 1415 Hus again, for the last time,<br />
gave witness to his own sense of mission as a preacher: “the principle intention of my<br />
preaching . . . was . . . to turn men from sin<br />
. . . . And in the truth of the Gospel that I . . . preached . . . I am willing gladly to die<br />
today.” 115<br />
There are two misconceptions about the preaching of Jan Hus. First, he is too<br />
often cast as a proto-Protestant <strong>and</strong> made to bear the ideology of certain sixteenthcentury<br />
reformers. While Hus did speak much of grace, faith, <strong>and</strong> the authority of<br />
Scripture a fortiori he knew nothing of sola fide or sola scriptura. Throughout the works<br />
<strong>and</strong> sermons of Jan Hus we can locate emphases upon the theological principle fides<br />
caritate formata, that salvation is apprehended when faith is formed or completed in<br />
love or good works. 116 The preaching of reformation need not be required to conform<br />
to the emphases of the European movements associated with Luther <strong>and</strong> Calvin.<br />
Second, Hus did not follow the pre-Hussite reformers <strong>and</strong> Wyclif in their emphasis of<br />
preaching at the expense of liturgy. 117 Bethlehem Chapel was a balanced, proportional<br />
blending of preaching <strong>and</strong> liturgical celebration. While he was the first to introduce<br />
biblical exegesis into Czech preaching he contributed modestly to the developing<br />
liturgical reforms which the <strong>Bohemian</strong> <strong>Reformation</strong> was later to yield up to the evolution<br />
of ecclesiastical history.<br />
On 23 May 1416 the university in Prague gave witness that Jan Hus as a minister<br />
<strong>and</strong> preacher was an unequalled master.<br />
O incomparable man shining greater than all by the example of magnificent<br />
holiness. O humble man gleaming with the light of great piety, who scorned<br />
wealth <strong>and</strong> ministered to those in poverty. He opened his heart <strong>and</strong> did not<br />
refuse to kneel at the bedside of the sick. With tears he drew the hardened to<br />
repentance. By his matchless sweetness he calmed fierce minds. He raged<br />
against the vices of humankind particularly the rich <strong>and</strong> arrogant clergy. He<br />
founded his appeals on the ancient <strong>and</strong> neglected Scriptural remedies. Formed<br />
in great love, <strong>this</strong> new motive caused him to follow in the footsteps of the<br />
apostles <strong>and</strong> through pastoral care he revived in both clergy <strong>and</strong> laity the<br />
righteousness of life as in the primitive church. Through courage <strong>and</strong> wisdom in<br />
speech he surpassed all others, demonstrating in all things the works of love,<br />
114 Schmidtová, Iohannes Hus. . . Positiones, recommendationes, sermones, 165 <strong>and</strong> especially his<br />
sermon “Dixit Martha ad Iesum” ibid. 167 <strong>and</strong> 174-5. Hus makes clear that evil priests can <strong>and</strong> do<br />
legitimately consecrate the body <strong>and</strong> blood of Christ in the mass but they do so to their own destruction<br />
<strong>and</strong> damnation. The communicants are not affected. This in his sermon on the Feast of the Nativity of St.<br />
John Baptist, 1411. The text was Lk 1. Flajšhans, ed., Mag. Io. Hus Sermones in Bethlehem 1410-1411<br />
4:220-24 at 223.<br />
115 Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance 233.<br />
116 Schmidtová, Magister Johannis Hus, Sermones de tempore qui Collecta dicuntur 189.<br />
117 Zdeněk Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu [History of the Hussite Songs] 6 vv. (Prague, 1954-6), 3:33<br />
suggests that pre-Hussite reformers emphasized preaching to such an extent as to imperil liturgy. That<br />
seems somewhat exaggerated <strong>and</strong> is patently untrue if applied to Hus.
126<br />
pure faith, <strong>and</strong> consistent truth . . . . in everything he became a Master of life<br />
without compare. 118<br />
His presence, passion <strong>and</strong> prowess as a preacher of the gospel was later<br />
acknowledged by the prince of sixteenth-century preachers, Martin Luther, who after<br />
reading Hus’ sermons in an Erfurt monastery library considered them to be<br />
magnificent.<br />
When I was a tyro at Erfurt, I found in the library of the convent a volume of The<br />
Sermons of John Hus. When I read the title I had a great curiosity to know what<br />
doctrines that heresiarch had propagated, since a volume like <strong>this</strong> in a public<br />
library had been saved from the fire. On reading I was overwhelmed with<br />
astonishment. I could not underst<strong>and</strong> for what cause they had burnt so great<br />
a man, who explained the Scriptures with so much gravity <strong>and</strong> skill. 119<br />
Jan Hus was a university professor, academic administrator, priest, author,<br />
Utraquist saint, national hero, <strong>and</strong> religious martyr. He was all of these things; but<br />
chiefly, in his own mind, he was pastor <strong>and</strong> preacher to the faithful church of God in<br />
Prague. His own words are perhaps the best summary of his motivation <strong>and</strong> career:<br />
“By the help of God I have preached, still am preaching, <strong>and</strong> if His grace will allow,<br />
shall continue to preach; if perchance I may be able to lead some poor, tired, blind, or<br />
halting soul into the house of Christ to the King’s supper.” 120<br />
118 Historia et Monumenta 1:103.<br />
119 Luther’s opinion appeared in the preface to the first volume of Historia et Monumenta <strong>and</strong> was included<br />
in the introductions to the first <strong>and</strong> second English editions of Hus’ letters. Letters of John Huss, trans.,<br />
Campbell MacKenzie (Edinburgh, 1846) 9 <strong>and</strong> The Letters of John Hus, eds., Herbert B. Workman <strong>and</strong> R.<br />
Martin Pope (London, 1904) 1. I cite from the second edition.<br />
120 Quoted in Pope <strong>and</strong> Workman, eds., The Letters of John Hus 87.